(03-27-2016, 11:18 AM)DarkGrievous7145 Wrote: I don't recall mention feeling cheated, although I kinda do with the stock art and ALWAYS finding it when I need some quick reference or free to use. The bulk of it uses designs that technically can't be copyrighted, too.
Equating it to theft still isn't valid, though. And again, loss of profits is a major stress of the actual situation. Then the big companies go and make these DRM's, or do other anti-piracy shit, and piss everyone off, including their legit customers, and woder why everyone hates them.
In a world where most of the games and movies are crap, no sense in renting that majority of movies anymore. So, regardless of having the money or not, if it's something pretty nonessential to your movie or game collection, that you might throw away, then no justifiable reason to throw trash at it. Also, you pay them to make shit, they'll make more shit.
And there's still the not even supporting the developer/artist/company. Let's just say, hypothetically, the KKK went and released an awesome game that isn't racist (don't ask how) for, oh $5. Only someone who actually supports them is going to contribute money to getting a copy, because that money is probably going to go into their funds for doing bad things. Ofc, one could always just not get the game at all, but meh...
Somehow I missed a key point in one of my posts: something old that's either unavailable elsewhere, or would cost an insane amount of money to acquire.
And then there's the subjects tied into ROM-hacking, emulation, and ripping. This site is a large-scale, ever-growing copyright infringement, if you think about it.
Indie vs. Big Company. This is admittedly true, but some indie devs and artists are actually real pieces of work... I've encountered one or two. I also know of an artist who has been screwed through infringement (and it was commercial infringement, too). But this also goes to show that the protection offered by copyright even has gaps, too.
I will say this, though, the companies and artists who act like total assholes, to their customers, and anyone else, treating them all like crooks, DESERVE to actually suffer damages because of pirates and others who might infringe upon their works. I read a comment on youtube advocating the piracy of stuff from Sony as revenge for taking-down popular parodies of songs owned by them (that also served as free advertisement to the originals) left and right in the name of "copyright". I gave said comment a big fat like, and it'd get more if I were able.
You're right that already owning it shouldn't count as piracy. I have a VHS or two that's actually destroyed, now. I'm not buying a damn DVD to replace something I already owned in the first place.
"prohibitively expensive" applies to most of the big game, movie, image, or photo-making or editing applications. Adobe CC is by far the worse thing that particular company has done, $90 (or whatever it was) a month adds up pretty damn quick. It also is not much more than a rental, which is bullshit for downloaded software
And on the subject of those tools, if you're not using them to make money, why cough-over the thousands of dollars to use them? Simple, you don't.
At the end of the day, copyright laws are always inherently flawed in their designs, and any form of infringement except that which is covered under "Fair Use" is illegal according to said laws. Those who choose to comply do so for their own reasons. Those who choose to only comply partially, or not at all, also do so for their own reasons. Hence why I left this as an open discussion. I actually originally started as a full supporter of those laws, and even feared them.To some degree, I still fear them, but I barely support them, after learning the ugly truth about how these companies that claim to be stolen from deal with anyone accused of this, regardless of the amount. Also noteworthy that unless it's an indie artist or game designer that the majority of the profits go to people who had nothing to do with the actual creation of the product. Due to Easter, I must cut this reply short, and there's one more major thing I needed to discuss, but I'll do so later. In general, my reply has been hasty and sloppy because of this situation.
The "cheated" comment isn't necessarily directed to you specifically (sorry for the confusion).
You directly say that DRM stems from the fault of pirates, so how can you turn around and blame the company for it (unless I'm misunderstanding that)?
If a lot of stuff is shit, be patient and wait for reviews. Or if there's a demo, try that first.
It is true that not paying bad companies for their product seems good, but pirating their stuff is still giving them a userbase, and the logical conclusion of that is DRM, as you've stated earlier.
I should've addressed ripping assets from games. On the whole, I don't have a problem with this sort of thing, but don't be a dick; be sure to denote spoiler-y stuff from new games.
People who pirate indie games (especially those priced far lower than regular games) are total scum.
I covered the whole asshole company thing a bit back: don't give them a userbase period, or your principles mean nothing.
I'm fine with not rebuying rereleases of games one owns if they don't have the opportunity to transfer purchases between systems when they really should be able to. (Cue angry glare in Nintendo's direction. I'm NOT paying for FIVE releases of Super Mario World.) And this is where I start to go into the gray: I'm fine with pirating "HD" rereleases/remakes if they change little to nothing from the original (hi Twilight Princess HD).
My use of the term "prohibitively expensive" might be too heavy for what I find acceptable. I'd even encourage piracy of the Virtual Console Pokemon releases (if it's even possible; is it?) for arbitrarily costing twice as much as other VC Game Boy titles. Not that I can't afford $10 but that's out of line and is only happening because the Pokemon Company are especially notoriously greedy.
Also, to touch on Fair Use, I think that a lot of people being smacked with takedowns on YouTube are being unjustly screwed, but one instance of complaining I find ridiculous and indefensible are standard Let's Plays that are monetized. Why? For the same reason most content creators on YouTube dislike "React" channels; it's some asshole(s) showing off someone else's work in its entirety and getting money off of it just because they're "enhancing the experience with their commentary" or some horseshit loophole excuse.